Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Hrc 5, Us 3, Antonini 1, Eric Brooks 1, Fong 1, Dewey 1, Laurence Brown 1, Peter Albert 1, John Haiber 1, Brandon 1, Elaine 1, Hillis 1, John Heber 1, Moore 1, Mundz 1, Turner 1, San Browny Avenue 1, Borden 1, Pea 1, San Francisco 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 18, 2012
    12:30 - 1:00am PST  

them exceeded $200,000. so in terms of local business enterprise we issued three contracts in the quarter. only one of the three required leb participation and actually 50% participation and for the media services but they are 100% leb firm so we have 100% participation there. the other two were want subject to those requirements so issued $248,000 in contracts so these were contracts that were issued during the quarter. this next slide shows how much we actually paid contractors during the quarter so these are actually dollar contract expenditures so these are contracts that have started before this quarter in
the prior fiscal year or within this quarter as well, so we had 20 as needed cso's issued, nine -- i'm sorry, not issued but involved 20cso's with dollar amount of $250,000. nine construction contracts and total payments of 13.$4 million. of that 14% went to lbe's. professional service contracts and five contracts and total payments of $52,000 in that. now just to point out as the as needed cso's and professional contracts and 48 participation so these are dollars that went to the lbe's and the other things this is just the payments within that quarter and this is just really a snapshot in time.
the construction contracts are below our ideal goal of 20% on kind of overall port -- looking at all contracts in the port. that was driven by one particular contract primarily and brondon street wharf and more of a reflection of where we are in the construction of that that wharf and as you have seen they're driving a lot of piles. that is most of the work going on. there are not lbe participation opportunities there. you will see it later in the construction of that project and that's what you see often with the construction projects. there's not an even use of lbe's throughout the contract time. in most cases -- we strive make sure they meet the mandate but you will see that vary quarter
to quarter and especially with the construction you don't have necessarily a smooth use of that, so overall we paid almost 14 mundz in the quarters and 2 million went to lbe's. we're required to report on local 21 personnel transactions during the quarter so we had one separation and three payments and one was a full time position and two were interim positions. we currently use dpw and have 26 projects they're wholly managing or partly managing for us so in conclusion -- it should be why we didn't meet the 20% goal in this quarter. we actually expect the contractors to meet
their lbe goals. we spent $2 million that money went to the contractors and we are currently working on streamlining our contracting process. if you have any questions that concludes my present. if you have questions i am happy to answer them. >> i just have a question on construction contracts exhibit two, and i'm just want to make sure that i am reading it correctly, and so the first categories are the total contract and what's been spent overall, but not through a time period, and then the second total spending is what's been spent in the first quarter? is that how you read it? >> no. the first one is the total amount on the contract and the second one is the lbe's,
specifically the payments to them. >> okay. so the -- let's say the brandon street ward and the total contract is 13.5 million total spending for first quarter is >> i'm sorry. i was looking at the presentation which exhibit again? >> two from the staff report. i'm sorry. >> so the first one is there's the total -- we have the total contract dollar amount. the total amount spent to date. the total lbe's spent to date, and then on the far three on the far right i'm sorry side of the table you've got the total spent for that quarter, for this quarter, so that is total i spent on the contract for the quarter -- >> right. so the first
category is the contract is over time, but it could be two years, three years -- >> correct. depending on the life of the contract to date. >> okay. >> so if you want to see what we totally spent on that contract for this quarter the total amount we spent within the quarter it's the third column from the right. >> okay. >> and then the next one over there is how much we spent -- we paid -- that went to lbe contractors, again within that quarter. >> right. so on the total contract over time -- over on these projects we've only met 12% of the 20% goal? >> yeah. that is correct. as of this moment in time. >> as of this moment in time. okay. so i guess i am just -- i want to make the point again that i think this report is
very important, and i think that a lot of people want to know this information of how we're doing, and there maybe an issue that we're not doing enough, and so i really want to make sure that we do this on a quarterly basis. we do it in open session, and instead of just reporting the numbers tell us what we're going to do to increase those numbers? what is staff doing actively to make sure that those numbers are met during all periods in time? >> i think one of the first things in doing the report on a quarterly basis. one of the things we want to do is work with the project managers and make sure we're tracking on a payment by payment basis where they are within the meeting the lbe goals, so we can look at that and have conversations with the contractors as we go along, and keep pushing them. how are
you going to meet this goal? how are you going to meet this goal? it looks like you're running around it. i think those contracts are less of an issue because you have already planned out the work for that contract, and it might be that the lbe is the person doing the dry wall and the participating so they're coming at the end of the contract. as you're putting up the steel and everything you see low lbe participation. you will see that at the end, so i think for those we can keep an eye on that and as long as they're meeting that and i know hrc is reviewing that as well. the issue is with the as needed contracts and tracking that. >> so they're told in the beginning that the lbe portion of the contract has to be x percent? >> right. >> do they present a plan how they're going to meet that goal? because i think as to the commissioner's question what
can they do about it? and while we can remind them it seems we want them to anticipate and not react and we didn't meet the goal and now what are you going to do? >> thank you for your questions of the i did want to point out the hrc goals is also in the chart for the goals and why it says actual percent is 20% and they have ones below that and they look at all the trade packages in that contract up front and reviews what we can reasonably and aggressively achieve and sets that goal. it's the port's commission policy that we get to 20% and we love to get better than and do better than the goals but i want to point out what we approved in the contracts are these -- for example, 9% for the brandon
wharf project. 3% are the maintenance dredge contract which we're actually having trouble meeting because we are not having off shore disposear. we have a plan up front. they look at what we can achieve and set the goal aggressively as we can reasonably achieve. we look to expand the lbe's and trade packages with coordination with them to get to the 20% goal and we are pleased when we get over the goal. for example with cruise terminal --
>> (inaudible). >> i'm sorry. let me get to the right one and a lot is the availability with the subcontracts and the hrc does and we partner with them in that work. >> for example if we use that as an example and see them over long period of time just not meeting the goal when they come again for bidding on something do we take into consideration they weren't able to meet the goal or always below it? >> it's a process and as we monitor this and good to do this in open session quarterly. as we monitor this with the project manager we talk with them when it's not meeting the goals and what's happened? why aren't they meeting the goal? is it a change in scope of work? if they don't meet them and they're fined and it's serious. if the port changed the scope or the dredging where there is not
enough off shore disposal we know it's because of a change in the work and we work with hrc if it's appropriate to fine because they have just failed to meet the terms of their contract. going forward we look to subdivide the work and find other ways to bring in more lbe's has we move forward and the next contracts we can push that goal setting up. >> what struck me is we seem to be exceeding our goals on the smaller contracts but unfortunately looks like the larger ones, particularly turner at pier 27 and with the america's cup that's where we have fallen short and some degree with the brandon street wharf and that also because what concerns me we push for lbe participation but then -- i
guess to your point we need to monitorrer more carefully and good to do it on a quarterly basis but i am concerned of the areas we're falling short and we were able to get more participating and shouldn't be below those goals. >> good point commissioner. i would like to add that the bigger contracts tend to have more pile driving in them and more of the type that work that requires a large company and not lbe. it's going to be a company with significant investment in the equipment and i know you have seen this and the vertexes and the primes too and so that's why that happens and on the smaller ones like the pier 33 and a
half where we have a lot of interwork on a building and dry wall, participating, electrical systems. those have high amount of participation in those fields and we do very well and overall with the exception of drudging and it's one of the big companies doing it and all we really have is trucking so if we have drudge spoils really toxic or not suitable for the bay and put them on the pier and dry out and truck it out to the landfill. that we can get a lot of participation with the trucking and we haven't had to do that luck ree and didn't find anything unsuitable which is nice but overall i think we did
a good job at meeting our goals. >> i think we did a good job with consulting but contracting i think we have room to grow and hrc knows that certain projects are going to have higher or lower goals which is why there is such a difference so they set the goals for a reason and that's because there are contractors out there available to do this work, so i can't of don't buy that argument. >> you just saw the annual report two meetings ago and we did meet the goals for the year when it smoothed out. i reported today we pored cement there tonight and will see a change in that number in the next quarter as we get to mr. burn's point to the interior on the cruise ship project see a change there as well, so it is a snapshot in time but i do think
in the last report we did a very good job on the contracts. i don't recall there was even one that fell below. do you recall that commissioners? >> don't. i would have to see the report in front of me. >> i wanted to clarify -- elaine picked it up as well and when you said open session. we always hear it in open session. i assume you mean on consent. >> definitely. it's a presentation. >> and i will the goals are below 20% on some of them and getting them up higher -- >> it's necessarily getting them more. i look forward to the next report. >> okay: we will make sure we exceed. >> thank you. >> maybe what maybe helpful is when we have the full four quarters or whatever that we can
have that as a comparison too and address some of the concerns and i just wanted to thank all of you because having seen a number of other departments and how they fair i am proud of the port for setting a higher goal and i do remember some of the other ports. we did meet and exceed the goals that we set. >> many. >> good work. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. >> item 11 -- >> move to public -- >> number 11, new business. >> any new business? >> wanted to comengz commissioners at the last meeting you asked for us to bring back maritime tenants for review and doesn't show on the calendar but we are intended to do that. commissioner you asked for a hearing on transportation.
we heard some of that today from peter albert but in january we will capture some of it from the next workshop. commissioner brandon asked for a presentation on the blue green way and probably best for january meeting and the december meeting has more items. >> i was responding to a call from david asking what his next step should be. >> i was the one that asked -- >> my apologize. >> i actually asked for it. >> in any event looking at december's calendar january is the better place for it and even more for december than today. >> one of the reasons to bring it forward sooner than later in light of the discussions earlier i want to make sure that the blue green way is incorporated in everything that is happening. >> and david has a terrific presentation to make and very
timely, so having said all of that. is there anything else to add to the calendar or new business in general? >> no. i think you're covered the items. okay. >> comment on new business. >> no more comments on new business. public comment in general? we do have one. john haiber. >> good evening members of the commission. i am john heber and represent a large well known development entity that has a strong interest in developing sea lot wall 337 and pea 48 and issue for these properties. it is
reported they're no longer involved in the property. in reviewing the port's document it's not clear if the company has withdrawn. what i do know there is no change more material than a change in ownership. if cornish is done both from legal and public policy perspective the port has no choice but to reissue the rfp. is there is no way the giants couldn't have won it without cornish's involvement nor do they have the experience to pull it off of this magnitude. the giants are a great club and great stadium but they have no experience in mixed use projects. the project proposed building several million of square feet of office space and shops and why they required them to meet extensive
standards. i am not familiar with one mixed use project by the environments. the project states that cornish company represented the bulk of the development expertise, not the giants. the fact that the giants have hired some consultant to help the process doesn't make them a seasoned developer. another concern is where is the money coming from? the port consultant laurence brown after reviewing the giants and cornish company financial records stating that cornish is providing the vast majority of the money. the last memorandum states that they need to generate the entitlements for infrastructure and this is a far cry from building this billion
dollar project. the sea wall 337 not a planned project and the giants shouldn't be able to shop for a developer partner. such actions are contrary to the public interest and imply back door dealings especially after the port confleet pleeted the public process and they have created a lot of value. shouldn't that value return to the public through the new issue afns rfp process. thank you. >> thank you. okay. is there any further public comment? hearing none we are going to adjourn the open session and continue -- >> [inaudible] >> in closed session. >> reconvene in closed your pre we typically only present for
budget and audit. >> so we're recording. so may have a motion -- >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> motion to reconvene in open session. >> second. >> and you also move -- >> i move to disclose not anything discussed in closed session. >> second. >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> okay. >> all in favor aye. >> aye.the hearing. silent any
mobile devices that may sound off. if you would like to speak on an agenda item please fill out a card and speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. at this time i will like to take roll. commissioner president fong. >> here. >> commission vice president with you. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> present. >> commissioner borden. >> here. >> commissioner hillis. >> here. >> commissioner moore. >> here. >> and commissioner avery. >> here.
>> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first up is items for continuous and item one at harve street and proposed for continuous until december 13, 2012. further under the consent calendar item six at 2895 san browny avenue request for conditional use authorization. this project sponsor has requested a continuous to december 6. >> is there any public comment on these two items? >> do you want to talk about item 11? >> six? >> 11. >> yes. >> under the calendar with consultation with the city attorney's office this item needs to be continued to
november 29. >> could you repeat that item, that last item please? >> absolutely. commissioners, under your regular calendar item 11 the amendments to administrative code chapter 31 to clarify certain procedures provided in that specifically ceqa is proposed for continuous after consultation with the city attorney's office. >> is there any public comment on the three items that are proposed for continuance? >> regarding of course lack of public notification in a timely
manner. it is wrong with state law with regard of the sunshine act of the legislature or ceqa. there is no way in which the city or the city counties as administrative district of the state can pass a laws or even consider laws that violate state law. therefore shouldn't even be an item. i will submit a document that our lawyers, dewey fleshman, who has challenged similar circumstances with park merced and given the fact that you have experience with these violations it should not reoccur. >> i would like to remind all members of public the matter before the commission right now is the continuance of the items proposed, not the matter of the item itself, but just the
continuance. >> eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization "our city". just a shout out in the room not familiar with planning department's process. this is the opportunity to speak on item 11 and i speak to the fact they am very glad to see for whatever reason you're continuing this, and the reason being that this legislation in a similar form was introduced in 2006 and struck down through public process, 2010 similarly rejected, and now in 2012, and in each case the outreach that the sponsor of the legislation has done to environmental groups, neighborhood groups, historic preservation, social
justice, environmental justice folks, all the folks that have the most to lose by this process were not approached in any way, shape, or form to get their input on this legislation, and the fact that this legislation was brought forward shortly before a very contentious election season when people were focused on the presidential election and important local elections, and also when we all had to be in the field for those things and the holidays are coming up, and by the way every time this legislation has been introduced that has been the situation. the cynical attempt to ram this through without stakeholders that need to be involved in this process like the groups i represented, and the others that will speak. the fact that we have not been included in any shape, way or form substantially inis